Saturday, May 24, 2014

Police said a gunman driving a BMW near the university campus went on a rampage that left seven people dead, including the shooter. Authorities described the tragedy as "obviously the work of a mad man."

Seven people remain hospitalized with gunshot wounds or other injuries, including one who has undergone surgery, following the shooting spree Friday night in the beachside community of Isla Vista, Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown said.

The gunman got into two gun battles before crashing his black BMW into a parked car. Deputies found the lone suspect dead with a gunshot wound to the head, but it wasn't immediately clear whether he was killed by gunfire or if he committed suicide, Brown said.

FAIRFAX, VA—National Rifle Association Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre said Monday that somewhere around 1,000 kids would have to die in a school shooting in order for the organization to reconsider their longstanding opposition to gun control."Yeah, that's probably the only way we'd reassess much of anything at this point: 1,000 dead kids, shot up pretty good, lying face down in the school auditorium or something like that," LaPierre said, noting that anything less than 1,000 dead kids would not be enough for the NRA to stop urging Congress to pass pro-gun legislation. "I mean, that's just a ballpark number, but I imagine seeing 1,000 or so body bags being wheeled out of a school and a whole town of crying parents would probably make us reflect on our values for at least a little bit.""So yeah, more or less 1,000 dead kids," LaPierre added. "Something around there. And teachers don't count."

The Gun guys don't get it -- we do NOT WANT your damned guns around us when we go out to spend money.

Every new chain that bans guns is a 'win' for civilization, and a loss for vigilantes, crackpot fanatics, and those old white flabby and crabby fools who see the world through a fog of fear where they hope to get a chance to blast someone who represents the change with which they cannot cope.

Chili's Considers New Gun Policy

Chili's is reviewing its policy on guns in its restaurants after a
pro-gun group upset diners by bringing rifles to one of its Texas
locations.
The restaurant chain's statement comes just days after
another cadre of Texas activists, also carrying guns, prompted Chipotle
to issue a statement telling customers that guns aren't welcome at any
of its locations.
Chili's isn't going that far yet, but the idea
is on the table. “Given the recent attention to open carry laws, we are
evaluating our policy to ensure we provide a safe environment for our
guests and team members,” a spokeswoman for Brinker International,
Chili’s parent company, told The Huffington Post.
Brinker didn't immediately respond to a follow-up question asking what exactly Chili's policy currently states.
The
company's decision to review its stance on the issue was prompted by a
video that surfaced on YouTube of a group of men carrying rifles into a
Chili’s in San Antonio, Texas.

Viewed by HuffPost before it was taken down on Wednesday night, the
video shows the men, each carrying at least one heavy firearm, asking to
be seated. The server appears to hesitate. A woman, apparently upset by
the presence of the heavy weaponry in the restaurant, appears to take
photos with an iPhone of each of the men in the group and seems to
angrily scold them for bringing guns into a restaurant with children. A
host at the restaurant then asks them to leave.
"We'd be glad to
accommodate you, we're happy to sit you and feed you," the server says.
"You just have to leave your firearms outside."

Sonic's didn't like them either:

In the second video, which has also since been removed, a male employee
from the Sonic asks the men to remove their guns from the dining area or
leave. The men cancel their food order and depart.

UPDATE: 2:45 p.m. -- Open Carry Texas backed down on Friday afternoon,
notifying members on that they are to "immediately cease" taking
shotguns and rifles into private businesses unless invited to do so.

Even civilization intruding on the wild west in the 19th century did not allow guns everywhere in cities and towns. Gun nuts appear to hold to a revisionist history of our country, and of carrying firearms, and seem to be too socially maladroit to understand without prompting what is appropriate.

The new legislation, which will be introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) in the House, and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in the Senate, would give the CDC $10 million a year "for the purpose of conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention."

"In America, gun violence kills twice as many children as cancer, and yet political grandstanding has halted funding for public health research to understand this crisis," Maloney said in a statement.

A National Rifle Association spokeswoman called the push for new CDC funding "unethical."

"The abuse of taxpayer funds for anti-gun political propaganda under the guise of 'research' is unethical," spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen said in a statement to ProPublica. "That is why Congress should stand firm against President Obama's scheme to undermine a fundamental constitutional right."

Most of this was taken from www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-anti-federalist-impulse/ with some editorial tweeks by me. The original is by Steven L. Taylor who is the Professor and Chair of Political Science at Troy
University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and
the institutional design of democracies. No wonder it was pretty good, but still needed a few tweeks.

I like to say that some of the defenders of the Constitution need to study up on what exactly they claim to be defending since they tend to say thing that go against the Constitution, such as the Second Amendment somehow repeals Article III, Section iii and allows one to wage war against the United States.

One of the remarkable examples of the Constitutionalist movement is that while they speak with great fervour about
the Constitution and the Founding Fathers: they rather frequently use arguments of anti-Federalists founders (they also come out and say that the US was established as a "Christian", nation rather than a secular one as well). For your information, the anti-Federalists were those who opposed the
ratification of the US Constitution, typically on the grounds that that
states ought to continue to retain their power positions under the
Articles of Confederation (the US’s first "constitution", more or less,
that was in place from 1777-1789 and subsequent ratification by the states).

One of the massive mistakes made by those on the rightward side of the
debate who claim the sacred nature of the Constitution is the assertion
that the Framers were states rights activists or that the goal of the
constitution was to constrain the federal government vis-à-vis the
states. While there is a debate to be had over the appropriate scope of
the federal government, as well as the meaning of things like the 10th
Amendment, the commerce clause, and the general welfare clause, there is
no debating that the whole goal of the US Constitution was to create a
strong, viable central government. It is indisputable that the US
Constitution was written and deployed to give the federal government more
power over the states than had previously existed (not the other way
around as some would have it). Yes, there are limits placed on the
federal government, but the Constitution itself was not created in the
context of the need to constraint government, it was created in the
context of the need to create a viable, functional government (and one
that was demonstrably more powerful than that which existed under the
Articles of Confederation). The argument for true state-level
sovereignty was an anti-Federalist, pro-Article of Confederation
argument. Indeed, if the Framers had wanted a tiny central government
that was subordinate to the states they already had one and therefore
had no reason to meet in Philadelphia in 1787.

To quote James Madison from a letter to George Washington in April of
1787: “I would propose that…the national government should be armed with
positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity;
such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both
exports and imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization,
etc. etc.”

If one is going to argue that, ultimately, the states should supersede
the federal government, then one is not making federalist (i.e.,
pro-constitution) arguments, one is making an anti-federalist (i.e.,
anti-constitution) arguments. If one wants to see the Framers’ views of a system in which state power
can trump federal power (i.e., a confederation) one need look no further
than Federalist 15-22(not to mention the text of the Constitution itself). This quote from 16, which strikes me as especially relevant to refuting the Constitutionalist mindset:

The result of these observations to an intelligent mind
must be clearly this, that if it be possible at any rate to construct a
federal government capable of regulating the common concerns and
preserving the general tranquillity, it must be founded, as to the
objects committed to its care, upon the reverse of the principle
contended for by the opponents of the proposed Constitution. It must
carry its agency to the persons of the citizens. It must stand in need
of no intermediate legislations; but must itself be empowered to
employ the arm of the ordinary magistrate to execute its own
resolutions. The majesty of the national authority must be manifested
through the medium of the courts of justice.

It is utterly inconsistent to claim the Constitution as one’s moral foundation and parading around with a copy of it in one’s shirt pocket and then arguing from the anti-Federalist position. At a minimum, it shows that one does not understand one’s own arguments. Mostly it is just a constant source of amazement to me that those who are the most vocal about the Constitution and the Founding generation get it so wrong most of the time. I would much prefer it if these folks would simply say, “You know, the anti-Federalist had a point about X, Y, and Z” (but that would mean that the Constitution isn’t perfect, which would create its own set of difficulties for them). I would also add that the Anti-Federalist position was the one that lost otherwise the would still be trying to function under the Articles of Confederation: if it even still existed.

Then again, it also shows that they have no real understanding of the Constitution or Constitutional law.

Next installment: why it is wrong to claim the Declaration or Independence as a legal basis for revolt (or Article VI for idiots).

New Jersey gun control bill passes Assembly, heads to governor's desk

(Reuters)
- The New Jersey state Assembly on Thursday sent Governor Chris
Christie a gun control bill that would limit the capacity of gun
ammunition magazines, but it was unclear whether the Republican governor
would sign the measure into law.Christie, widely
perceived as a possible White House contender in 2016, has a mixed
record on gun control and has given no indication of his plans for the
measure.The bill, approved in the Assembly by a 44-34 vote, would cut the maximum capacity of gun magazines to 10 from 15.
Gun control groups say it could save lives."No
law abiding citizen needs 15-round magazines," said Bryan Miller,
executive director of the anti-violence group Heeding God's Call."In
mass shootings, the shooter is overwhelmed at the point he has to
re-load," he said. "That provides the rest of us opportunities to stop
the carnage."

Friday, May 23, 2014

And he is actually a shape shifting SPACE ALIEN (who looks a little bit like James Carville - uh OH!).

Here is a little fun at the expense of the cray cray CRAZY conservative
conspiracy theory believers. There are, sadly, so many of them; it is a
defining quality of conservatives that they believe things which are not
true or factual.

And those things scare them, so they need to carry guns at all times.
Because......shape shifting space aliens walk among us! (and other wacko
conspiracies on the right). Benghazi! The IRS conspiracy! WARRANTLESS GUN CONFISCATIONS!

Etc. etc. etc.

Some of them are inadvertently really really funny. Join me in laughing AT them, not with them (if you can -- this may hit too close to home for some of you who are less-well-connected to reality).

This is an example of one of the gun-rights fanatics' favorite tactics. They mischaracterize their opponent's argument and then argue against that mischaracterization.

In this case, the lie is that Michelle Obama's selfie was a call for "unconditional surrender" of the Boko Haram terrorists, that "Vladimir Putin or Boko Haram terrorists will change their ways because of tweets."

Usually these twisted and manipulated arguments are designed for mockery. They creatively change what their antagonists say and then mock them for supposedly saying it.

This tactic is superficial and juvenile and it begs the questions, if the gun rights movement really has right on its side why would they continually resort to deceptive tricks like this.

Dawn Nguyen, who bought weapons that a gunman used to kill two West Webster firefighters in 2012, will spend the next 16 months to four years in a state prison.

State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Moransentenced Nguyen on Monday, a month after she was convicted of lying on a firearms transaction form when she bought the guns in 2010.

It was the maximum sentence, yet Moran said it failed to match Nguyen's crime — providing guns to William Spengler Jr., a convicted felon who beat his grandmother to death with a hammer in 1981. He was barred from owning firearms as a result.

The sentence was a win for prosecutors, who sought a prison term. Nguyen's attorney, Matthew Parrinello, previously said probation would be appropriate.

"Everyone wants to connect Dawn Nguyen to that, to say but for Dawn Nguyen that wouldn't have happened," he said of the shooting. "Our position is that isn't correct."

After the sentencing, Ted Scardino, one of two firefighters wounded in the 2012 shooting, said Moran "hit the nail on the head." With a crowd of uniformed first responders behind him, Scardino recalled what Nguyen's attorney said about her nieces.

"Several families here have little kids that don't have a father or don't have a son anymore," Scardino said.

Nguyen bought a rifle and shotgun at Gander Mountain in June 2010. She indicated on a firearms form the weapons were for her, but authorities said they were for Spengler, her neighbor.

On Christmas Eve 2012, Spengler set a fire at his Lake Road home in Webster and ambushed emergency responders, killing volunteer firefighters Tomasz Kaczowka andMichael Chiapperini and wounding Scardino and Joseph Hofstetter.

Authorities say Spengler also used a third weapon — a handgun — to kill his sister, Cheryl, before setting the fire. He used that gun to kill himself.

Assistant District Attorney Timothy Prosperi said Nguyen chose to ignore obvious risks in buying weapons for a felon whom her family called the "crazy dude."

As Nguyen traveled to Gander Mountain, looked at guns with Spengler and filled out the transaction form at the register, she had several chances to change her mind and walk away, yet she did not, Prosperi said.

"Essentially, judge, she ignored these dangers and made a calculated decision to engage in this crime for money," he said.

A new poll shows Georgia voters disapprove of the state’s new gun law, despite being more likely to own guns or believing gun ownership helps protect people.

Fifty-nine percent of respondents gave HB 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act, a thumbs down, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll conducted by SRBI of New York. The bill will allow licensed gun owners to carry firearms in many churches, bars, and government buildings. It will also allow military men and women age 18 and older permission to obtain a license to carry a firearm. Under current law, applicants must be at least 21 years old to be granted a gun permit.

Fifty-seven percent of Georgia voters said they believe owning a gun helps protect people from crime. A majority of the people polled — 55 percent — say they or someone they live with owns a gun. Only 35 percent said gun ownership puts people’s safety at risk.

According to the latest list issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, there are 21 water systems that could be out of water in 90 days or less. Eleven water systems may have just 45 days or less before running out of water.
According to reporting by the Associated Press, the state's reservoirs are at their lowest point for this time of the years since 1990.

Of course, people cannot live without water, even if you are going to joke make a dumb comment about drinking beer instead since most alcoholic beverages require water at some stage in the process.

In fact, without water you cannot live.

You can't really say that about having a gun.

Do you feel stupid yet? Or will that take time to soak into your heads?

I would rather be expressing something which I find to be true and beneficial to society than go with the herd.

Which takes me out of the class "Sheeple" since that implies a person who unquestioningly goes along with the herd.

In fact, Robert Ferrago said to me in a comment something along the line that I should give up and go along with the consensus.

Yes, I should agree with something that I have investigated and found wrong because everyone else believes it.

WRONG

I have made a couple of posts about dumbed down citizens and people who believe patently false things--that would place me in that group.

I've also mentioned the argumentum ad populum (argument to the people, or everybody believe it's true) fallacy. I would be engaging in fallacious thinking.

While some might call me a pseudo-intellectual (which shows they have never met me and don't know me), it would be far more in character of a pseudo-intellectual to go with something which sounds good, but doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Personally, I don't know how you can feel intellectually superior when you are expressing something which is so obviously wrong and false.

The victim arrived was dropped off at an emergency room around 9:50 a.m. Sunday with a gunshot wound to the chest. He fell unconscious before he could tell hospital staff what happened. A witness gave investigators the address where the shooting occurred, police reports show.

The gun Sanders had was legal for him to own and no weapons charges were filed.

The teen was in serious condition at the hospital Sunday.

That's a good one. No weapons charges were filed except reckless use of a firearm.

A 4-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself after he found a .25-caliber pistol last week has died, according to the Dorchester County Coroner's Office.

Coroner Chris Nisbet identified the boy as Jeffery Scott of Otranto Road in North Charleston. He died Friday afternoon at Medical University Hospital, where he was being treated following the May 12 incident.

Nisbet has ruled his death an accident.

Summerville Police Capt. Jon Rogers said detectives are still trying to determine who owned the gun. The case remains under investigation, and no criminal charges have been filed, he said.

The boy's 75-year-old grandmother, Margaret G. Wilson, called 911 around 4:40 p.m. on May 12 to report the shooting at 811 W. Richardson Ave.

A Hanford High School mom was arrested Friday after she was accused of unlawfully carrying a loaded semi-automatic onto the school campus and later using it to threaten her child’s former boyfriend.

Rebecca Charron, 33, believed that her daughter was being harassed by the male student, who also attends Hanford High, according to police reports.

She picked up her daughter in the parking lot of the school Friday afternoon and the two left without incident. But when they drove past the 7-11 store on George Washington Way, Charron spotted her daughter’s former boyfriend in the parking lot.

Charron stopped and confronted him, according to police reports.

She pointed the handgun, still in the holster, at the teen and told him not to make her use it, according to police reports.

Several people who saw the alleged confrontation called 911 at 1:39 p.m. Charron returned to her car and waited for police, according to reports.

She was taken into custody on suspicion of second-degree assault and carrying a loaded firearm onto school grounds without a concealed weapons permit.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

These are Iranians dancing to Pharrell William's Happy. The dancers were released, but the director is still being held as of now.

Tyrannical regimes arrest people who hike into their territory. There were even rumours that the Albanians shot machineguns at wind surfers who strayed too close to their territory.

Just think of what would happen to someone who criticises the regime (or would be really stupid and advocate overthrowing it). And if you walked around carrying weapons (although some of these countries that is acceptable behaviour--after all, they will gas you or wipe your asses off the map with more firepower than your puny weapon is capable).

It seems that anti-intellectualism and dumbing down are alive and well in the US as my previous post on this topic pointed out, but it is REALLY bad at how DUMB people can be as the Vanity Fair Editorial The Creeping Danger of Conspiracy Theorists points out:

But some of the latest polling data does seem
to show that at least 30 percent of American citizens—and maybe lots
more—are as dumb as a bag of inbred hammers.

The poll in question is a delightful one put out this week by Public Policy Polling,
a concern ranked by Fordham University as the best out of 28
organizations for the accuracy of its national pre-election estimates in
2012. This time, the folks at P.P.P. decided to have a bit of fun, and
rather than polling about which political party is up or down, opted to
ask Americans about their beliefs in conspiracy theories. I can just
imagine the laughter at the P.P.P. offices when they started putting
together the questions.

Yes, you can find out how dumb and hoodwinked you are if you are able to actually read (and understand) the editorial.

As the editorial ends:

Yes, we have become scientific and political illiterates, and no
nation can survive on a bedrock of such delusional stupidity. Of course,
the 26 percent (or more) won’t believe me, if they manage to read this.
I’ll just be deemed an “elitist” for daring to suggest that demon
science and data, rather than ridiculous conspiracy theories, should be
used to judge reality. So, it may be a losing battle, but we should all
try. I don’t want to be forced, someday, to stand by as the rest of the
world renames our nation “America the Ignorant.”

First Starbucks and Now Chipotle – Are These Actually Pro-Gun People or Just People Hired to Act Like it?

Part of me wants to produce a truly sarcastic piece about how true this piece was, but after having dealt with your kind for nearly 20 years now--I know you would be dim enough to miss it was sarcasm. Which is too bad since I came up with a really funny piece, which would have been funnier since I'm sure all the gun blogs would be clogged up with verification that someone who is "paid by Brady" (funny, but I think I write the groups cheques and am a supporter, not an employee; however, that may be too fine a distinction for your small minds).

On the other hand, we have open carry morons doing what you do best, but in this case they are far more effective at turning people off than you are. It's even better if you implode on yourself with your craziness and leave everybody else alone.

Make no mistake, stashing guns around your house is serious business–the safety of others is at stake so there is no room for error. For this reason, an honest and informed (and even professional) assessment of your living space and conditions is crucial. Where as a couple living alone in the woods with few visitors may get away with storing their frequently carried 1911 in an old boot in their shoe closet, a family of five has a lot more to consider.

The Down

The first decision is between long and short term storage while the paradox here is between security and access. A corollary consideration is who are you really hiding your guns from: Kids? Thieves? Jackboots?

The decision and method you chose to hide your handgun will fall somewhere between the extremes of concealed carrying your gun at all times and burying your handgun as a super long-term survival strategy. When making this decision, more than ever, terrain and circumstances dictate tactics.

Short term solutions are ideal for every-day-carriers. Storage styles fall on a spectrum between two categories, “go-to guns” (primary weapons that can/will be accessed at a moments notice) and “backup guns” (guns that are better hidden and harder to access, but may hold some specific strategic value). These back-up guns toe into the arena of long term solutions which apply more to BBQ guns and survival treasures (more on these in future installments).

The Dirty

When children are a part of the equation, look for high spaces and unfrequented (not “forbidden”) places–on the top shelf of Dad’s closet of mystery may not your best option (but then again, depending on your brood, it might). Also realize that education is the only real long term solution to keeping your children safe around guns.

When it comes to hiding your handgun, custom solutions are often the best (and most satisfying) solutions.

Inevitably, someone is going to call out this article for divulging tactics and they will be right–adopting what is readily known is at odds with the philosophy you’ll need to abide by when keeping your handgun out of sight. Take the information here as inspiration and seek out creative and adaptive solutions on your own for full effect (custom solutions are often the best solutions).

The best place for your handgun may be on your person and in a gun safe at all other times.

Farago once said, the ONLY place for your gun is on your person or in a gun safe.

The National Rifle Association, which has torpedoed gun control bills for 30 years, is facing a formidable opponent: Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

The 1.5 million member-organization hopes to capitalize on gender differences in Americans' attitudes towards guns to elect candidates to Congress and state legislatures who support universal backgroundchecks for gun buyers and limitations on child access to guns.

Rep.Carolyn McCarthy, the leading proponent of gun control legislation in Congress since 1997, believes this is a good plan.

"Over the years, I have had many colleagues tell me that they would like to support my bills but are terrified to do so because the NRA would end their legislative careers in the next election," said McCarthy, a New York Democrat, in a phone interview. "To overcome this logjam, Congress must become more afraid of the moms than the NRA."